interkoneksitas -> ketimpangan akumulasi -> transformasi sosial/lanskap agama cocok dengan modernitas -> menggambarkan progress -------modernitas

-> no longer disciplines of the body -> spirituality -> private -> twitter -> fundamentalism -> liberates individuals from the agony of cho ice submission to god an group unload from uncertainity of c hoicemakingg -> aesthetic, instant community superficial, experiences of community takes part in ritual and experience a connectedness togetherness of individuals provide a sense of community without ethical or long-term commitmens (Bauman 2001) Islam tidak mengalami break from the church seperti halnya Kristen fenoeman ini lebih natural krn Islam udah dari sananya begiu ustadz2 alternatif bisa lebih mudah muncul Being isolated from daily routine, participants may feel at home with strangers

People living in risk societyy do not appreciate the religious msg of vulnerabil ity buut are longing for reassurnce to be ale to deal with uncertainity and need a short introduction in the way they can do this. They need experts. http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2012/01/islamic-fundamentalism-and -dialectic-of.html Rather, Islamic-fundamentalist terrorism repeats the basic pattern of modern au tonomy, the dialectic of self-determination through negation of the other. This dialectic received its paradigm expression in the Hegelian system, where the oth er is reduced to the negative counterpart of the subject, its alien externalizat ion, to be reintegrated by means of a synthesizing negation of the negation.

The other has value for the subject only insofar as it is valued by the subject , insofar as the other fits into his plans and projects, his subjective design of possibilities (Heidegger, Sartre). This is the sensitive underbelly of the moder n autonomous subject, the dark side of the Enlightenment: the fact that the subj ect can only be autonomous by means of violence against otherness. That is to say, the autonomous subject realizes itself through a branching struc ture of hierarchical oppositions, in which it is posited as the superior pole th rough the negation of the subaltern, the abject, the imagined inferior other.

< continous imagination of the other This modern morbidity underscores the fact that the otherness, which the subject must exclude in order to be autonomous, comes not just from outside but is prod uced within, as through an internalization of the scapegoat mechanism. In order to achieve total self-control, the subject produces in himself the unruly nature to be conquered, cultivated and exploited. the meaning of modern autonomy is ultimately giving your life for the fatherland in the war with inferior others. In that sense, the Islamic terrorist blowing h imself up in an attack on infidels is a truly modern autonomous subject. To repe at: Islamic fundamentalism is not alien to modernity, rather it holds up a mirro r to the West ----After all, how can Islamic fundamentalism be a radicalization of modernity when it violently rejects modernity? Doesn t this rejection confirm the neoconservativ e analysis of Islam as being essentially alien to the modern West, in that Islam ic cultures have not evolved beyond premodern, medieval bondage, unlike our own Judeo-Christian tradition, from whence modernity came? Protestanism: to the formation of modern autonomous subjectivity as such. By doing away with the mediatorship of the priesthood, Luther turned the relation with God into a s ubjectively internal affair of individual responsibility. American Protestantism during the late 19th and early 20th century, when the mos t individual religious experience resulted in absolute faith in the literal trut h of Scripture, a voluntary self-sublation of subjective autonomy into religious heteronomy (see Euben 1999: 16-17). This origination of fundamentalism in Protestantism highlights the constitutive importance of modern subjectivity for the possibility of fundamentalism: only an autonomous subject is capable of a radical break with the past in order to give himself without reserve to God. -----we must appreciate how the Middle East was introduced to modernity. Especially since the demise of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, th e Middle East has been occupied and colonized by the West, particularly the Fren ch and the British (though the Americans have had military presences in and arou nd the Persian Gulf since the second half of the 19th century; see Palmer 1992). Under western supervision, the Middle East was divided into modern nation states , who then tried to modernize their economies and populations, following either capitalist or socialist models. In this way the Middle East was introduced to th e modern ideology of autonomy (be it capitalist or socialist) and the practices of exclusion, domination and exploitation that went with it. Thus the Middle East was inserted into the developmental logic of modernity, the dialectic of self-determination through negation of the other. The ideological

aspect of this modern self-determination involved what Edward Said (1978) called orientalism , the imaginary production of the East as the Other of the West, the a nti-West. functioning of orientalism as the ideological expression of the dialectical deve lopment of the modern West. The imaginary construction of the Middle East as the dialectical Other of the West legitimized and still legitimizes the concrete ex ploitation of the Middle East in the practices of modernity (capitalism, cultura l imperialism),

Disillusioned about this false universality, many muslims turn away from moderni ty, rejecting it as a lie, an ideology in the Marxist sense: a universal dream t hat hides and serves particular interests, mainly those of western capital. Attracted to fundamentalist movements are therefore not the rural muslims who ha ve remained relatively uneffected by modernity, but rather muslims who grew up i n modern cities, often highly educated, but who nonetheless feel themselves as m uslims displaced within modernity, excluded as its internal outsiders . Islamic fundamentalism is rooted in the modern culture of autonomy Islamic fundamentalism is the resistance of modernized subjects to modernity (of modernized subjects who have become victims of modernity s violence to otherne ss) therefore respond be rejecting modernity, but they do so as modern, autonomous s ubjects. Partha Chatterjee puts this crucial point: formed by the modern discourse of au tonomy, such post-colonial subjects are forced to choose their place of autonomy fro m a subordinate position vis--vis a colonial regime which had on its side the most universal sources of legitimation produced by social thought after the Enlighte nment . (Chattergee 1993: 11) their place of autonomy can only be the rejection of the Enlightenment culture tha t dominates them. By rejecting modern autonomy, the post-colonial subject posits his autonomy. Seen in this light, Islamic fundamentalism is essentially a counter-reaction of modernity to its own violent dialectic, a counter-reaction which therefore still takes place within that dialectic, in the form of self-determination through ne gation of the other the other who is in this case modernity itself. Islamic revival movements can be understood as a reaction against modernity, but more profoundly they are also an expression of modernity. (Lapidus 1997: 444) Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit (2004) call he eyes of its enemies occidentalism , which is [t]he West in t